Well, the statements from the six candidates for director general of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) are in. Do they give us any insights into who would be best? Best is difficult to define because there is only a very uninspiring list of duties for the post in place of a proper job description.

So I have been through the statements and have tried to summarise (a) the programme they outline (their priorities for what they would do), (b) why they think they are suitable for the job, and (c) my sense of the scope for further FAO reform under their leadership (which I think is vital). I try to be faithful to their statements when summarising but my take is inevitably going to be partial.

It is hard to assess a candidate exclusively on written materials. We would like to see the presentations (why no YouTube videos?) and we would want to have a chance to interact with them and to hear from their colleagues about their values, how they work, and what they are like to work with. These soft skills are vital to effectiveness.

Here are my impressions from their statements.

First, none of them really describe what they want the FAO to look like or how they want it to be perceived at the end of their tenure. They are playing to multiple audiences, and this leads to caution, but none of the statements contain big ideas.

Perhaps the boldest is from Austrian Franz Fischler, a former EU agriculture commissioner, who wants the FAO to become a more "crucial player" in political decision-making processes around hunger and food security.

The most organised is from Brazilian José Graziano da Silva, a former minister and the FAO's regional representative for Latin American, and his five pillars. I especially like his explicit focus on governance of the global food system.

The statement by Iranian Mohammad Saeid Noori Naeini, a senior FAO official, also focuses on the global public goods, but I find it a little more scattergun in its approach.

Spain's Miguel Ángel Moratinos Cuyaubé, a former foreign minister, also has a rather unstructured list of things he wants to do. Some are tangible (co-ordination unit with World Food Programme and the International Fund for Agricultural Development, guranteed fund for microloans to farmers), some not (a Unitaid2 for funding country anti-hunger plans – Unitaid seems a strange model in that it leverages price reductions in diagnostics and medicines).

The remaining two candidates are very non-specific about what they will do or how they will do it.

Second, only three of the five candidates actually say why they think they are well qualified for the position. I'm not sure what guidance the candidates were given when preparing these documents, but that seems strange – perhaps it reflects different cultural norms in putting oneself forwards. Da Silva seems to have a very strong case if his role in Zero Hunger is as central as described in his statement. However, it's difficult to know how much to attribute to him and how much to ex-president Lula. I would like to know what his FAO colleagues think of his leadership of the regional office in Latin America over the last five years. I also liked his positioning (being from Brazil) as a bridge between developing and developed country experience, although I was less impressed with the suggestion that it is Latin America's turn to be director general.

Noori Naeini's leadership of the Voluntary Guidelines for the Right to Food, if as central as stated, is an important indicator of his commitment to a nuanced view of food security. He also sees himself as an important driver of the FAO reform process – it would be good to know more about his role in that. Fischler's experience seems less centrally focused on fighting hunger in Africa and south Asia, but, as we know, trade – which he has much experience in – will be a vital arena for food security in the next 10 years.

Moratinos Cuyaubé was Spain's foreign minister during a time when the country's aid increased dramatically and a greater share of it was controlled by development specialists, so he would seem to have good credentials and evidence on his side.

Third, on the scope for further reform of the FAO, I liked Fischler's commitment to being an ambassador in the fight against hunger, and I also liked his ability to drill down to specific processes (eg what will this mean for recruitment at the FAO?). I appreciated Da Silva's commitment to developing his four-pager in partnership with members, and Noori Naeini's pledge to be a one-term director general was refreshing – although how this enhanced ability to drive through change squares with his assessment that FAO staff are suffering from "reform fatigue" is not clear. Moratinos Cuyaubé talks about human resources and finance policies needing a revamp, and a strong emphasis on partnerships (good), but also brazenly talks about the importance of having an African deputy (old politics wins out).

Finally, all the candidates talk about results-based management, but none of them actually say what they understand by this – what are the results that really matter and what will they actually do about it? The candidates need to be pushed harder on this. Is the results agenda only about donor compliance or is it also about accountability to farmers and to those living with food insecurity?

Overall, I did not find the statements particularly inspiring. Certainly, it is difficult to write a statement that offends as few people as possible but also moves us to believe we can end hunger. But I think we should expect the next FAO director general to be able to manage it.

Sign up for the Guardian Today

Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.